Are you ambitious, meticulous and competitive? Do you thrive with technology and despise books and dictaphones? How does Hamptons living with NYC cases sound for your days? Lieb at Law is looking for a candidate who challenges the old-boys-club with hard-work, facts and confidence. We want someone who puts their money where their mouth is and will prove themselves first before asking for entitlements. If your writing is sometimes sloppy with typos, you need not apply. The firm is seeking the right attorney to join our collaborative team. Is that you?  

To Apply: Email cover letter, resume and legal writing sample to careers@liebatlaw.com

*no phone calls or faxes will be considered
*May 2013 Law School Grads Should Apply

www.liebatlaw.com

If you haven't already picked up a copy of today's Dan's Papers, check out page 78, Kelly Ann Krieger's article, "Let Expert Andrew Lieb Guide You".

Some information on foreclosure defendants receiving money in the mail, which is being shared by an Assistant Case Manager at Lieb at Law, P.C., Laura Palermo:     

Last evening, Lieb School came back to Newsday to start out 2013 lineup of courses. The first topic up was Deal Killers, which is my favorite course of all of our 15 licensed courses offered in our Course Catalog.

A large section of Deal Killers is devoted to not letting your deal die through understanding mortgage contingency clauses and how real estate agents should negotiate the shift of risk from the buyer to the seller when such a clause is added.

While discussing the topic last evening, we addressed a mortgage denial and explained the burdens of good faith and diligent efforts on a buyer. Next, we explained that even if  a buyer engages in some breach of the clause in bad faith, they may still prevail in cancelling the contract and having their down-payment returned if their breach is not the basis upon which the denial occurred.

To illustrate, I suggest our readers review the recent Appellate Division case of Ettienne v. Hochman where this precise scenario unfolded just this month. Therein the contract called for the buyer to apply for a "no-income-check mortgage", which the buyers failed to do and it seemed as if they were in breach. However, the Court looked to their basis of denial and found that "it would have been futile for them to additionally apply for a no-income-check mortgage" because they were denied based upon "their credit history" and not the type of mortgage applied for.

The takeaway for our readers is that while it matters that the buyer applies for precisely the mortgage called for in the contract of sale, a breach may not result in the buyer sacrificing his down-payment (assuming it is the liquidated damages for breach), if the buyer's failure to apply for the precise mortgage is unrelated to the basis for denial.

This case illustrates the exception to the rule where one would ordinarily have to follow the terms of the contract to the letter to be in compliance.